Wednesday, May 11, 2011

Do Ray Li ::: the beat goes on and on and on and on

I got an other world class migraine while listening to Truc Do's cross examination of Dr Dixon.  Truth be known, nowadays I feel a headache coming on every time Ms Do opens her mouth.  She's rude, abrasive, talks too damned fast, mispronounces a lot of things, and doesn't know when to shut up.

While it's no secret [pun intended] I'm not a fan of James Arthur Ray.  I'm all for the rights and privileges guaranteed ALL Americans under judicial process [1] ::: James Arthur Ray included.

That said, it chafes my behind when James Arthur Ray's defense team exploits these rights to such an extent that their actions become an abuse of process [2].  James Arthur Ray's defense team tactics are so extreme (and waste so much time) they are causing financial hardship to the jury, the victims, the victims families, the witnesses AND the state [We the People - the folks PAYING for this debacle].

  • Arizona Rules of Evidence state that "a witness may be cross-examined on any relevant matter".  Rule 611.(a) states "that the court may impose reasonable time limits on the trial proceedings or portions thereof". [3]

While I'm not a lawyer it would seem to me that the relevance of the questions asked by James Arthur Ray's defense team could be called into question ::: along with the time and manner employed to ask them.
It sickens me that James Arthur Ray's defense team is willing to waste every one's time with multiple mistrial filings, redundant questions, innuendo and hearsay.  That it's legal for them to routinely obscure facts, harass witnesses, and threaten further litigation is simply outrageous.

The Known Facts
During Spiritual Warrior 2009 Sweat lodge
  1. Dozens of people became ill during sweat lodge.
  2. Three People (Kirby Brown, James Shore and Liz Neuman) died.
  3. After being informed that people were in distress, James Arthur Ray did not stop the sweat lodge.
  4. After being informed that people were in distress, James Arthur Ray did not immediately facilitate the removal of these people from heated lodge.
  5. After the event ended, James Arthur Ray exited first and did not make sure everyone had exited and/or been removed from the sweat lodge.
  6. After the event ended, James Arthur Ray did not call 911 to get at for the many people who had fallen ill, were unconscious and were not breathing.
  7. Upon learning people were unconscious, not breathing and/or were in severe distress, James Arthur Ray did not offer any support.  He simply watched.
  8. After the event, while people were still in distress, James Arthur Ray went to his room to eat and shower.
  9. After the event, when asked to be interviewed by the police, James Arthur Ray lied, called his lawyer then refused to be interviewed further.
  10. Before leaving Angel Valley James Arthur Ray did not speak to any of the participants still on site.
  11. When James Arthur Ray left Angel Valley he did not release the names of any of the sick or dying to police and/or the various hospitals and morgue they had been taken to.
  12. James Arthur Ray has stated he left Angel Valley and the state, ostensibly to prepare for a paid event he had scheduled the next day.  After being confronted about the deaths during the event, James Arthur Ray again refused comment. 
  13. After confrontation, James Arthur Ray canceled all future events and stated he was starting his own investigation.
  14. James Arthur Ray then began transferring all corporate funds into his own personal accounts and lawyered up, committing corporate embezzlement [4] and fraud.
Criminal acts

"A normative definition views crime as deviant behavior that violates prevailing norms – cultural standards prescribing how humans ought to behave normally."[5]
The questions placed before the jury should be.
  1. Was James Arthur Ray's Sweat lodge too hot?
    - did an unusal amount participants suffer heat related illness?
  2. Did James Arthur Ray take adequate precautions to protect participants?
    - Did James Arthur Ray provide emergency medical support?
    - Did James Arthur Ray hire and provide an on site doctor, paramedic, or nurse?
    - Were IVs, oxygen, defibrillator and resuscitation equipment available during the sweat lodge?
    - Was there an Ambulance standing by during the sweat lodge?
    - Were all staff members trained in CPR and Emergency First Aid?
    - Was a 36 hour Vision Quest (food water) fast too dangerous an activity to hold prior to a sweat?
    - Was witholding water for 36 hours while outside in the high desert potentially life threatening?
    - Was placing people outside alone in the high desert without supervision, let alone food, water and proper clothing dangerous?
  3. Was James Arthur Ray's behavior ::: before, during and after ::: the sweat lodge negligent?
    a.  No certification or training in running a sweat lodge.
    b.  No certification or training in Holotropic Breathwork™. [6]
    c.  No certification or training in The Samurai Game®.
    d.  Would a reasonable person have stopped the sweat lodge when people became ill?
    e.  Would a reasonable person have made the sweat lodge so hot?
    f.   Would a reasonable person have called 911 upon discovering people were dying?
    g.  Would a reasonable person have left the scene?
Once these answered in the jury's mind, they must decide if James Arthur Ray's actions were outside the norm, contributed to the deaths of three people and constitute negligent manslaughter.

Lastly, I'm bothered that a man who has stated he's too broke to post 5 million in bail, is somehow able to afford a multimillion dollar defense.
Links and References

1.   The Judicial Process. Article III of the Constitution of the United States guarantees that every person accused of wrongdoing has the right to a fair trial.  Constitution of the United States

2.   abuse of process n. the use of legal process by illegal, malicious, or perverted means. Examples include serving (officially giving) a complaint to someone when it has not actually been filed, just to intimidate an enemy, filing a false declaration of service (filing a paper untruthfully stating a lie that someone has officially given a notice to another person, filing a lawsuit which has no basis at law, but is intended to get information, force payment through fear of legal entanglement or gain an unfair or illegal advantage. Some people think they are clever by abusing the process this way. A few unscrupulous lawyers do so intentionally and can be subject to discipline and punishment. Sometimes a lawyer will abuse the process accidentally; an honest one will promptly correct the error and apologize.

Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.

3.   Arizona Rules of Evidence

Rule 611. Mode and Order of Interrogation and Presentation

(a) Control by Court; Time Limitations. The court shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of  interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to (1) make the interrogation and presentation effective for the
ascertainment of the truth, (2) avoid needless consumption of time, and (3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment. The court may impose reasonable time limits on the trial proceedings or portions thereof.

(b) Scope of cross-examination. A witness may be cross-examined on any relevant matter.

(c) Leading questions. Leading questions should not be used on the direct examination of a witness except as may be necessary to develop the witness' testimony. Ordinarily, leading questions should be permitted on cross-examination. A party may interrogate an unwilling, hostile or biased witness by leading questions. A party may call an adverse party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a public or private corporation or of a partnership or association which is an adverse party or a witness whose interests are identified with an adverse party and interrogate that person by leading questions.  The witness thus called may be interrogated by leading questions on behalf of the adverse party also.

4.   Embezzlement is distinguished from swindling in that swindling involves wrongfully obtaining property by a false pretense, such as a lie or trick, at the time the property is transferred, which induces the victim to transfer to the wrongdoer title to the property.  The fraudulent conversion of another's property by a person who is in a position of trust, such as an agent or employee.
5.   WIKIPEDIA - Crime

A normative definition views crime as deviant behavior that violates prevailing norms – cultural standards prescribing how humans ought to behave normally. This approach considers the complex realities surrounding the concept of crime and seeks to understand how changing social, political, psychological, and economic conditions may affect changing definitions of crime and the form of the legal, law-enforcement, and penal responses made by society.
n. the crime of stealing the funds or property of an employer, company or government or misappropriating money or assets held in trust.


There have been several criticisms of breathwork's safety, with critics pointing out the well-known physiological dangers associated with hyperventilation, such as hypoxia and Can cause low blood oxygen, seizures. There is little peer reviewed scientific evidence of its effectiveness in treating illness.  Although altering the breathing can be relaxing to some people, hyperventilation is also a symptom of panic disorder. However, breathwork and hyperventilation are not synonymous as many types of breathwork listed above regard hyperventilation as unnecessary and only occurring when the exhale is not relaxed.

No comments:

Post a Comment